It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Christmas Eve Stock Market Crash Maga Edition.

page: 8
37
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2018 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults



little or no government control


Does the government demand you make goods? Do they demand you buy them?

The stock market is not manipulated by the government (at least not that we know of and not on a scale greater than "little")

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what government control means. In economics it mostly refers to price controls, supply/demand controls, not really regulation. While it's true that specifying that cars meet x emission standard before they're allowed to be sold is not truly a free market, it's not even close to a centrally planned market. In a centrally planned economy the regulations would not be needed because they would simply have planned the vehicle from the start. There would be one or two companies (using that term loosely) that made the cars and both would be run by the government. They would have the number of vehicles they were making set by the government using some sort of environmental standard (most likely) as the limiting factor.

The Fed isn't the economy. The Fed is a banking system. The Fed is not part of the government and therefore cannot qualify as central planning (although they can get close). What you need to realize is that these terms were coined with (and still have) specific meanings. China before the 1990's was a centrally planned economy. They still are, but less so (just like we are less capitalist/free market than we were in the late 19th century).

But to more directly address y our question: The fed is not a central planner because they adjust money supply based on demand. They are not trying to maximize profit, they have three aims: low unemployment, moderate interest rates, and keep inflation stable. They are supposed to make all decisions on money supply based on those three things. IOW, they're reactionary (or at least they attempt to be), central planners are proactive.


in a truly free market economy I could develop my own banking and currency system and introduce it into the community via my own means


You can. In fact, many stores do just that with their gift card, credit card, and rewards systems. Is bitcoin or other crypto illegal? Hell, there are stores on the border that accept foreign currencies. I can use my hilton points on amazon. I can use my southwest points on korean air. These are all currencies, but they're not backed by the government




posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 12:08 AM
link   


The Fed is a banking system. The Fed is not part of the government and therefore cannot qualify as central planning


the government being in control has nothing to do with central planning. Fed inflation/deflation schemes to create value and devalue the currency to control the up and downsides of the natural fluctuations of capitalism is without a doubt centralization

honestly, the argument you are making is dishonest, you obviously know how the Fed is centralizing the planning of our economy through the bond market and currency asset valuation is very transparent



But to more directly address y our question: The fed is not a central planner because they adjust money supply based on demand. They are not trying to maximize profit, they have three aims: low unemployment, moderate interest rates, and keep inflation stable.


this is a very deceitful argument. they do more than raise and lower interest rates to prevent the economy from taking off or slowing down (come on dude how isn't that centralized asset value management?)

Fed balance sheet


For much of financial history, the Fed's balance sheet was a sleepy topic. The weekly balance sheet report became popular in the media during the financial crisis starting in 2007. When launching their quantitative easing in response to the ongoing financial crisis, the Fed balance sheet gave analysts an idea of the scope and scale of Fed market operations at the time. In particular, the Fed balance sheet allowed analysts to see details surrounding the implementation of an expansionary monetary policy used during the 2007-2009 crisis.


expansionary monetary policy? what's that?

expansionary monetary policy



Expansionary monetary policy is when a central bank uses its tools to stimulate the economy. That increases the money supply, lowers interest rates, and increases aggregate demand. It boosts growth as measured by gross domestic product. It lowers the value of the currency, thereby decreasing the exchange rate. It is the opposite of contractionary monetary policy.


Expansionary monetary policy deters the contractionary phase of the business cycle. But it is difficult for policymakers to catch this in time. As a result, you typically see expansionary policy used after a recession has started.


do you really think I'm dumb enough to fall for your BS defending the Federal reserve?

hah. don't kid me and those who spend their time reading your utter nonsense. ya'll aren't even smart anymore
edit on 26-12-2018 by toysforadults because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 12:51 AM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults



the government being in control has nothing to do with central planning.


And that's where you're wrong. Central planning, in an economic sense, is ALL about government control of the economy.



honestly, the argument you are making is dishonest, you obviously know how the Fed is centralizing the planning of our economy through the bond market and currency asset valuation is very transparent

this is a very deceitful argument. they do more than raise and lower interest rates to prevent the economy from taking off or slowing down (come on dude how isn't that centralized asset value management?)


You can keep calling me deceitful all you want, I'm not deceiving anyone, it's you who can't get your language straight. You want to call things central planning that are not central planning.

Also, I never claimed they *only* raised and lowered interest rates. They have three tools they can use:
1) Reserve ratios
2) Interest rates
3) Open market operations

Asset management =/= central planning. Again you're not being precise in your language and that's what is causing our disagreement here. The dishonest part (to take a page out of your book) is that you have been corrected but refuse to use the proper terminology.

Central planning (in economics, which is what we are talking about) is government control and, ironically, most people who rail against the fed want the government to centrally plan the banking system. That's why I find it odd you're coming at this from such a perspective.



expansionary monetary policy? what's that?


The tools the fed uses which I listed above (didn't need to even click your link because I actually know all about how the fed and money supply work, and I didn't learn it from zerohedge).



do you really think I'm dumb enough to fall for your BS defending the Federal reserve?


I'm not defending the federal reserve. All I've done is point out a few fallacies you've attempted to further here. But I'm not an "end the fed" guy, I'm a "reform the fed" guy. It's a catch 22. I think governments do a piss poor job managing the money supply but I also think the fed is corrupt. So what's the solution I should support? Give the government control? Abolish the fed and give some other institution control? So I choose reform. It may not be as flashy and fun as the other two, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense.



hah. don't kid me and those who spend their time reading your utter nonsense.


What have I posted that was nonsense at all? That we're not a centrally planned economy? It's not nonsense, here's your definition right from your favorite source, investopedia:



A centrally planned economy is an economic system in which the state or government makes economic decisions rather than the these being made by the interaction between consumers and businesses.




ya'll aren't even smart anymore


I'm only one person, not y'all. I can promise you that I'm smarter than you when it comes to economics, but probably not smarter than you in other areas.



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 02:46 AM
link   
a reply to: St Udio




Trump #45 did not set up the market decline... but Mnuchin did.....see:

Mnuchin is a "very smart person" which I guess is why the Donald hired him , perhaps Mnuchin did what he did for reasons unknown to you , I or the Donald.
Why is everything negative that happens always someone else's fault , Trump is quick to claim credit when the market rises but walks away and blames others when it falls.



imho the Fed globalist faction is joining the Dems in running riot on the Trump Economy...& the Never Before Fed inquiry into Bank Solvency issues over the weekend was Deliberately Designed to tweek the Santa-Claus Rally that usually happens...POOF another leg down the 2,000 point ladder to collapse !

Anyone but the President.
Trump Defence Force.



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 03:33 AM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults


how can you be confused on my position?

I already explained that. Did you read the whole post?


you asked what I thought capitalism and free markets were and I gave you proper examples based on what our academic communities think of those issues

And I agreed with those.


you need to step back and realize that capitalism and free markets do not apply to our system and stop making arguments that pretend they do

Actually, I think it is you who needs to step back and take a look at the things you are talking about.

Yes, there is government intervention in the market... always has been and always will be because the market is driven by profits and government regulations tend to affect profits.

No, we do not live under pure capitalism... we live under a mixture of capitalism and socialism, which is actually preferable to pure capitalism.

The result does not mean the market does not respond to market forces, only that a part of those market forces are artificial and government related.

Trump does not control the stock market, but his policies affected it by making companies have a better outlook for higher profits, driving up the price of stock. The stock drop started right after the 2018 election when the House switched to Democratic control, and has slid steadily downward amid the threats of everything from gridlock to impeachment... none of which are conducive to higher profits. That drove the stock market down.

One cannot expect to damage the profit market and still have a robust stock market. The two are not conducive to each other. Hurt business profits and you drop the market. Help businesses to profit and you raise the market. You seem to want to hurt business profits and raise the market, and that has never worked in the history of the market. It cannot work that way; it is a confused position.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 04:51 AM
link   
a reply to: soundguy


Wait a minute, I am confused, when the economy was doing well during Trumps presidency, you credited it to Obama, now its Trumps fault?



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex


indeed it is Trumps economy... but the Mnunchin actions of contacting the 6 major Banks about their being able to handle a sudden surge of cash demands -> really spooked the Stock Market part of the Economy on Monday (X-Mas eve)...

One really needs to delve deeply into why the Secretary chose to do that unprecedented inquiry with the 6 big, Market Maker, Banks that are under Fed control... was it to cause market jitters? or was he actually concerned that the Banks had become less insulated from a sudden Financial Market Stress ? in any case Mnunchin has covered-himself with the cloak of Plausible Deniability of 'back-stabbing' Trump.....

the response of my serving as a Trump Apologist is way below your level, Sir... I will think that slur was from the Fortified Egg Nog consumed in this Festive season, tyvm



bring on 2019



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: ausername
This ain't Trump's doing, it's a component of many yet to come scorched earth deep state reprisals designed to derail the unstoppable Trump train.

Brought to you by the deep state and their eight tiny little reindeer...

Merry Christmas!



At this point to be a Trump supporter you must be willfully ignorant. There is so much evidence that points to Trump not being on the level, but yet his supporters still thinks he walks on water.

Just follow this simple steps and you too can be a Trump Zombie:


  • When Confronted with Good News give Thanks to Trump - "It's all because of Trump!"
  • If you are told someone else is responsible, Deny! - "You're just a jealous lying Dem, Trump is to responsible for the discovery of the cure for cancer!"
  • When Confronted with Bad News blame the Deep State, Hillary, Obama, The Dems or all of them! - "It's not Trumps fault that those immigrants are being separated at the border thats because of Obama and the Dems!"



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: openminded2011
a reply to: soundguy


Wait a minute, I am confused, when the economy was doing well during Trumps presidency, you credited it to Obama, now its Trumps fault?



It is a pretty simple concept really. When Trump took office the economy had been improving for years. The simple act of him becoming president didn't do anything substantial to help the economy. At that point it was still Obama's economy because it was Obama's policies that led to the growth of the economy following the 2008 recession.

Trump's big business tax cuts DID act as a short term boost to the economy. It really led the stock market to grow greatly. However, the reason why the stock market grew was because the analysts thought the tax cut would lead to new investment. However, as most economists predicted it wouldn't lead to new investment but rather to stock buy backs. So, now investors are realizing that the expected new investments haven't happened and will not happen. Therefore, they are taking the money they put in the market out now. Add to this the stupid phone call Mnunchin had with the banks and the stock market is freaking out.

So, bottom line is that the economy is still in generally good shape, but the stock market is losing it's mind due to Trump and friends.



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: toysforadults


how can you be confused on my position?

I already explained that. Did you read the whole post?


you asked what I thought capitalism and free markets were and I gave you proper examples based on what our academic communities think of those issues

And I agreed with those.


you need to step back and realize that capitalism and free markets do not apply to our system and stop making arguments that pretend they do


...The stock drop started right after the 2018 election when the House switched to Democratic control, and has slid steadily downward amid the threats of everything from gridlock to impeachment... none of which are conducive to higher profits. That drove the stock market down.



TheRedneck


This would be your opinion, and would be wrong. You won't provide any kind of data to back up this spurious claim because the data doesn't support your assertion. I'm saddened that I have to explain correlation doesn't equal causation to you, but here we are.

Perhaps you'd like to share with us how the stock market always nosedives whenever Democrats control sections of the government?



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 11:57 AM
link   
And the Dow is up 500
Lol
Happy Holiday!



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: St Udio

It wasn't meant as a personal slur just a reaction to the conspiracy theory you proposed , it seems that Trump can only do good if bad happens it's someone else's doing.
I don't know why Mnunchin took the action he did but I'd be surprised , to say the least , if it were because of a plot against Trump.



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer


This would be your opinion, and would be wrong. You won't provide any kind of data to back up this spurious claim because the data doesn't support your assertion. I'm saddened that I have to explain correlation doesn't equal causation to you, but here we are.

Opinions are what one thinks. Facts are what really happens. No, sir, I am not wrong, based on the Dow Jones Industrial average over the last ten years. That really happened and is not my opinion. Whether or not the downturn is due to any specific reason is an opinion, but not the fact that the market dropped at the exact time as the 2018 elections.

Nor is it my opinion that the stock market tends to rise based on profitability of business; that again is a fact. I cannot believe you are trying to argue otherwise.


Perhaps you'd like to share with us how the stock market always nosedives whenever Democrats control sections of the government?

No, I would not, because that was not my claim. I'm really getting tired of people trying to twist my statements around.

My claim was that the present claims of the Democrats that were elected to the House have indicated a less profitable business climate, and that is one cause of the drop. The market is not looking at whether or not the next Congress is Republican, Democrat, or Tory for that matter. The market cares about policy and how that policy relates to expected profitability. That's all it cares about.

Now, go that link I embedded and look at the chart. The DJIA hit a low below 8000 early in Obama's first term (too early to be attributed completely to him IMO; that one is on Bush), then showed a steady slow rise until late 2016 when Trump was elected. Then it rose rapidly until it plateaued throughout 2018, and dipped back down at the same time as the 2018 elections. President Trump came into office promising a more profitable business climate and immediately began following up on those promises. The present Democrats came into office promising to stop Trump from doing anything to advance the profitability climate he created. The market dropped.

Again, for clarity, the market does not care what political party is in power. It only cares about profit. Now, pray tell, what pro-business policies have the Democrats espoused after their win? I answered your query; will you now answer mine, or will you deflect?

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Wayfarer


This would be your opinion, and would be wrong. You won't provide any kind of data to back up this spurious claim because the data doesn't support your assertion. I'm saddened that I have to explain correlation doesn't equal causation to you, but here we are.

Opinions are what one thinks. Facts are what really happens.

Again, for clarity, the market does not care what political party is in power. It only cares about profit. Now, pray tell, what pro-business policies have the Democrats espoused after their win? I answered your query; will you now answer mine, or will you deflect?

TheRedneck


You wrote a whole bunch there practically contradicting your first line. You're just listing pure opinion, not FACT (and considering how badly you've bumbled your attempted clarification, I'm not certain you even realize you don't understand the difference). Economist have argued forever about the de-coupled nature of the stock market as it relates to politics, so cherry picking tidbits here to support an opinion is tantamount to just spouting some inane lie and running with it like its the truth (the classic Trump Method).

Since you seem unable to grasp that either of us can list bull# examples of political actions coinciding with stock market fluctuations, I'm not sure how answering your query above to the contrary of your expectation is going to 'prove' anything. For example, I could claim that Democrats looking to stop destabilizing international trade (Trump Brand international trade policy) is good strategy for calming investors (shareholder) fears which should stem/stop/reverse a downward trend, however it would merely be a supposition on my part and almost assuredly unprovable in any scientific sense.
edit on 52pm18fpmWed, 26 Dec 2018 12:39:29 -0600America/ChicagoWed, 26 Dec 2018 12:39:29 -0600 by Wayfarer because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal


Trump's big business tax cuts DID act as a short term boost to the economy. It really led the stock market to grow greatly.

I agree. His continued promises of a more profit-friendly political climate (read: less restrictions on business) helped as well by boosting confidence in future business prospects, as well as his increases to NASA and the DoD budgets.


However, the reason why the stock market grew was because the analysts thought the tax cut would lead to new investment. However, as most economists predicted it wouldn't lead to new investment but rather to stock buy backs. So, now investors are realizing that the expected new investments haven't happened and will not happen. Therefore, they are taking the money they put in the market out now.

That makes absolutely no sense to me. I have personally seen quite a lot of investment in new machinery and technology in businesses around here, although I will admit my personal knowledge is primarily limited to NASA and DoD contractors.

But further, why would any company buy back it's own stock when the price is high? That is a poor method of operation. Typically, businesses buy back stock when it is low, to conserve resources. A stock buy-back is a method of repaying debt extended from investors, and what you are suggesting would be like waiting to pay your mortgage off when the interest rate is as high as possible; no one with any financial sense does that.

As for investors taking out their money, that's what would have already happened in this supposed stock buy-back. A stock buy-back would also have the effect of increasing the amount of funding available in the future, since the companies would own stock that could be re-sold if needed - that in itself could be seen as a future investment and would attract stock purchases, not discourage them.


Add to this the stupid phone call Mnunchin had with the banks and the stock market is freaking out.

I'll admit I am confused as to why that call was made. However, it sould not have been the cause of the market drop, because we live in a causative universe. From the Washington Post:

The statement came hours before Asian markets were set to open and following a sharp sell-off that made last week the worst for U.S. markets in a decade.

Perhaps it exaggerated the drop, but it simply could not have been the cause.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer


You wrote a whole bunch there practically contradicting your first line. You're just listing pure opinion, not FACT

Is it my opinion that the DJIA hit the lowest point in the last decade during early 2009?

Is it my opinion that the rate of increase increased in late 2016?

Is it my opinion that the DJIA plateaued during 2018?

Is it my opinion that the DJIA dropped sharply beginning in late 2018??

No, sorry, those are facts.


Economist have argued forever about the de-coupled nature of the stock market as it relates to politics, so cherry picking tidbits here to support an opinion is tantamount to just spouting some inane lie and running with it like its the truth (the classic Trump Method).

What they have not argued about whether the market price of a stock corresponds to profitability predictions. I'm not sure why you are taking the stance that it does not... assuming you are taking that stance. To be honest, I'm not completely sure what you're arguing for at this point... you seem to change position from paragraph to paragraph.


Since you seem unable to grasp that either of us can list bull# examples of political actions coinciding with stock market fluctuations, I'm not sure how answering your query above to the contrary of your expectation is going to 'prove' anything. For example, I could claim that Democrats looking to stop destabilizing international trade (Trump Brand international trade policy) is good strategy for calming investors (shareholder) fears which should stem/stop/reverse a downward trend, however it would merely be a supposition on my part and almost assuredly unprovable in any scientific sense.

It would also be in direct contradiction to the evidence. Had the stock market not dropped when it did, I could entertain that idea. But it did drop, and that would indicate that the conditions you mention were not conducive to investor confidence.

Also, I do not consider the DJIA an 'outlier.'

But, I see you choose to deflect rather than answer... so be it.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 01:46 PM
link   
I am sure the stock markets and economy would have being so much better with Hillary right? unless of course they are having their of wish crashing the market stocks just so they can blame the crash on a republican president.



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Wayfarer


You wrote a whole bunch there practically contradicting your first line. You're just listing pure opinion, not FACT

Is it my opinion that the DJIA hit the lowest point in the last decade during early 2009?

Is it my opinion that the rate of increase increased in late 2016?

Is it my opinion that the DJIA plateaued during 2018?

Is it my opinion that the DJIA dropped sharply beginning in late 2018??

No, sorry, those are facts.


Economist have argued forever about the de-coupled nature of the stock market as it relates to politics, so cherry picking tidbits here to support an opinion is tantamount to just spouting some inane lie and running with it like its the truth (the classic Trump Method).

What they have not argued about whether the market price of a stock corresponds to profitability predictions. I'm not sure why you are taking the stance that it does not... assuming you are taking that stance. To be honest, I'm not completely sure what you're arguing for at this point... you seem to change position from paragraph to paragraph.


Since you seem unable to grasp that either of us can list bull# examples of political actions coinciding with stock market fluctuations, I'm not sure how answering your query above to the contrary of your expectation is going to 'prove' anything. For example, I could claim that Democrats looking to stop destabilizing international trade (Trump Brand international trade policy) is good strategy for calming investors (shareholder) fears which should stem/stop/reverse a downward trend, however it would merely be a supposition on my part and almost assuredly unprovable in any scientific sense.

It would also be in direct contradiction to the evidence. Had the stock market not dropped when it did, I could entertain that idea. But it did drop, and that would indicate that the conditions you mention were not conducive to investor confidence.

Also, I do not consider the DJIA an 'outlier.'

But, I see you choose to deflect rather than answer... so be it.

TheRedneck


Lol, ok, congratulations on your ability to list facts, which are in fact, facts (despite them being unproveably linked to the correlation you are making). However, your thoughts on the causes of those facts or the correlations between other events and those facts is pure opinion (not provable), as are your other thoughts on the subject you espoused earlier. Again, correlation doesn't equal causation. This is not a deflection or redirection, but a correction to your spurious claims above. All your thoughts couched as some kind of insightful realizations on connections between stock market performance and corresponding political events/actions are merely poorly deduced opinions bereft of any hard facts or data that backup your claims enough to cross the finish line of scientific deduction. Usually in economist circles they are careful to couch these hypotheses behind caveats of exception as they usually don't have the sum total of data to conclusively deduce an answer rigorously enough to get a quorum of agreeance among their colleagues.

As I mentioned earlier, if you had rather listed data that showed that in the overwhelming percent of political control vs. stock market performance that it was conclusively a Democrat problem, then I wouldn't feel the need to argue with you over this. Unfortunately for you such data doesn't exist.



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: AtlasHawk
I am sure the stock markets and economy would have being so much better with Hillary right? unless of course they are having their of wish crashing the market stocks just so they can blame the crash on a republican president.


Are you a Russian bot that we have been hearing so much about; Your syntax is goofy not to mention proof that you haven't even read a bit of the thread.



www.washingtonpost.com...



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 02:50 PM
link   
omg...… its 10 minutes till Market close and the DOW is up 900+


the PPT is doing it in hyper drive







 
37
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join